Archives

  • 2018-07
  • 2018-10
  • 2018-11
  • 2019-04
  • 2019-05
  • 2019-06
  • 2019-07
  • 2019-08
  • 2019-09
  • 2019-10
  • 2019-11
  • 2019-12
  • 2020-01
  • 2020-02
  • 2020-03
  • 2020-04
  • 2020-05
  • 2020-06
  • 2020-07
  • 2020-08
  • 2020-09
  • 2020-10
  • 2020-11
  • 2020-12
  • 2021-01
  • 2021-02
  • 2021-03
  • 2021-04
  • 2021-05
  • 2021-06
  • 2021-07
  • 2021-08
  • 2021-09
  • 2021-10
  • 2021-11
  • 2021-12
  • 2022-01
  • 2022-02
  • 2022-03
  • 2022-04
  • 2022-05
  • 2022-06
  • 2022-07
  • 2022-08
  • 2022-09
  • 2022-10
  • 2022-11
  • 2022-12
  • 2023-01
  • 2023-02
  • 2023-03
  • 2023-04
  • 2023-05
  • 2023-06
  • 2023-08
  • 2023-09
  • 2023-10
  • 2023-11
  • 2023-12
  • 2024-01
  • 2024-02
  • 2024-03
  • 2024-04
  • 2024-05

    • In Understanding Business Cycles Lucas states The same type

    2018-11-07

    In Understanding Business Cycles, Lucas states: The same type of criticism appears in Unemployment Policy. In this paper – which is mainly a criticism of the useless (according to Lucas) concepts of full (as also involuntary) unemployment and the use of economic policy in the quest to attain it. Lucas affirms: In After Keynesian Macroeconomics and in Methods and Problems in Business Cycle Theory Lucas presents a broader type of criticism. His analysis deals with the position of Keynes\'s book in the history of business Rupatadine Fumarate manufacturer analysis. In After Keynesian Macroeconomics he says: Lucas did not inherit the intellectual respect that Friedman cultivated for Keynes. While Friedman (1968: 1) praises “Keynes\'s rigorous and sophisticated analysis”, Lucas believes that “Keynes\'s actual influence as a technical economist is pretty close to zero” [LUCAS in Usabiaga Ibanez (1999)]. The traditional narrative about the Phillips curve, understood as a deterministic menu, and the theoretical anticipation of its break by Friedman and Phelps on the late 1960s, is present in Lucas\'s speech. Since history is written by the victors, this narrative became the truth. However, this is a questionable historical interpretation. Lucas\'s commonly attributes to Phillips (1958) and Samuelson and Solow (1960) the idea of a stable and exploitable trade-off between inflation and unemployment, but none of these authors suggests it explicitly or even implicitly. Phillips’ paper – developed in just one weekend – has fairly modest ambitions. The question he raised was: since prices move according to the excess of demand, will one observe this same behavior in the labor market? If the unemployment rate is a proxy for excess of demand, and wages are the price in that market, one should expect to observe a negative relation those two variables (in terms of rate of change). What was somewhat surprising in Phillips’ work is that this relation was observed for in a long period. When authors like Samuelson and Solow also found an analogous relation and its validity in countries other than the UK, this apparent regularity became a strong empirical result. It is not ordinary in social sciences to observe this kind of regularity through time and space.
    Conclusion We have presented a citation analysis of Lucas\'s papers published between 1967 and 1981, using three different sources of data. According to two of them, Lucas most influential paper from that period is one in asset pricing, which is somewhat surprisingly since he won the Nobel Prize because of his business cycle research. Even to Lucas this may be unexpected. In several interviews he states that he believes that Expectation and the Neutrality of Money was his most influential paper, and we show that this is inaccurate if one accepts citations as a proxy of influence. We also showed that Lucas\'s business cycle papers have lost importance since early 1980s, this is probably due to the emergence of the Real Business Cycle approach in 1982, which captured the attention of those who are interested in a market-clearing approach to economic fluctuations and made Lucas\'s monetary theory of the cycles irrelevant. Expectations and the Neutrality of Money (1972), Some international evidence of the on output-inflation tradeoffs (1973), and An Equilibrium Model of Business Cycle (1975) present a hump-shaped citation curve, with its height point between 1982 and 1984. Nonetheless, Lucas methodology remains as a cornerstone in Macroeconomics.
    Introduction Articles on sector switchers rely on many different matters to describe arguments about the change, such as: the environmental and historical differences between both sectors (Su and Bozeman, 2009; Bozeman and Ponomariov, 2009); the difference in incentive and motivation (Rainey and Chun, 2005); levels of formalization (Buchanan, 1975); and salary and job security (Rainey and Bozeman, 2000; Boyne, 2002; Ichino and Riphahn, 2004; Engellandt and Riphahn, 2005; Rainey and Chun, 2005; Bradley et al., 2007). According to Bozeman and Ponomariov (2009), one of the reasons for such a reduced systematic research is due to the few available databasis. Most databasis have not focused on sector switchers or job histories, and when such variables are included it is difficult (because of the means by which data are aggregated) to relate sector-switching patterns to motivation, attitude, or outcome variables.